Kolkata Court April 1939 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Dhirendra Nath Bhattacharjee and ors. Vs. Charu Chandra Mittra and ors ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-04-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal207
Henderson, J.1. This appeal is by defendant 2. He is the purchaser of two properties which, were sold in execution of two certificates. He made the purchase from defendant 1 who was the actual auction-purchaser. The plaintiffs are the original owners of the property. Their case is really extremely simple. They alleged that defendant 1 who was managing their property colluded with all the peons and suppressed every single process in connexion with the certificates. On this allegation they prayed firstly that the sales might be set aside, and, secondly, that in the alternative defendant 2 should be ordered to re-convey the. properties to them on proper terms. The Munsif dismissed the suit. Far from finding any evidence of fraud he was satisfied that the processes were all served. The plain-tiffs then appealed. The learned District Judge set aside the decree of the Munsif, made a decree setting aside the sales and directing that the plaintiffs should be put into khas possession of the pro...
Corporation of Calcutta Vs. Monjoor Ahmed
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-04-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal488
Derbyshire, C.J.1. The Calcutta Corporation on 1st February 1934 got a preliminary decree in respect of the charge they had on a certain property of the respondent. The final decree in that matter was passed on 3rd March 1934. Thereafter there were certain petitions for adjournment in the proceedings for rehearing under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil P.C. Those prayers were granted from time to time and, eventually, there was an application by the plaintiffs for the passing of a final decree under Order 34, Rules 4 and 5, on 10th September 1936. That application was rejected on 10th October 1936. The application for execution was filed on 4th September 1937. Both the Courts below have held that it was time-barred, being made three years after the date of the final decree. It transpires' that the property in respect of which the-charge for rates was given is wakf property and that from time to time, after the finals decree had been passed on 3rd March 1934 there were attempts to get the matter...
Deva Dutta Serogi and Sons Vs. P.C. Mitter and Sons
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-03-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal530
ORDERMcNair, J.1. The plaintiff firm have taken out this summons for an order that the Official Receiver be directed to accept the prices offered by the Calcutta Metal Syndicate at the sale held by Messrs. Staynor & Co., on Tuesday, 10th January 1939 and that he do deliver the goods to the purchasers, and distribute the sale proceeds as directed by an order of this Court dated 14th December 1938. The defendant firm of P.C. Mitter & Sons was adjudicated insolvent on 11th January 1939, and the Official Assignee contends that there was no concluded sale on the previous day and that the goods, the subject-matter of the sale, vested in the Official Assignee for the benefit of the general body of creditors. The application is supported by Callenders Cable and Construction Co., and by the purchasers. Callenders Company brought Suit No. 1662 of 1938 against the debtors and a consent decree was passed on 25th August 1938, by which the Official Receiver was appointed Receiver of the business and...
Jyoti Prosad Ghosh Vs. Kumud Behari Bose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-03-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal638
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the plaintiff and it arises out of a suit commenced by him for a declaration that certain entries in the settlement records are incorrect. The facts are rather simple. The plaintiff's case is that he and his cosharers were in possession of the lands in suit which lie outside the ambit of the revenue paying mehal from before the time of the permanent settlement in assertion of their niskar right. Defendants 1 and '2 who are the ijaradars under the proprietor, Raj Krishna Deb, had got certain entries in the Record of Eights made behind the back of the plaintiff, which recorded the plaintiff as tenant under defendants 1 and 2 and the land as liable to be assessed with rent. Plaintiff says that these entries are incorrect and that he is entitled to hold the lands free from payment of any rent or re-venue. The trial Court held on evidence that the lands undoubtedly lay within the ambit of the mal mehal and an old chitta which was produced by ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›